Coleman v. Zatechka

824 F. Supp. 1360 (1993)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Coleman v. Zatechka

United States District Court for the District of Nebraska
824 F. Supp. 1360 (1993)

  • Written by Alexander Hager-DeMyer, JD

Facts

Kristy Coleman (plaintiff) enrolled as a student at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln (university) (defendant) and sought dormitory housing. Students applying for dormitory housing filled out applications stating whether they wanted single or double rooms and any preferences for roommates. Students requesting double rooms were then assigned roommates, either randomly or through mutual specific requests. Coleman had cerebral palsy, requiring her to use a wheelchair for mobility and to have a personal attendant assist her with dressing, showering, and using the bathroom. Coleman applied for a double room with a nonsmoking roommate and expected to be randomly assigned a roommate. Instead, the university assigned Coleman a single room in accordance with a university policy stating that disabled students requiring personal-attendant care could not be assigned to double rooms without mutual specific-roommate requests. The policy was enacted due to past disabled students expressing embarrassment over roommates seeing their attendant care and to increased room-change requests from unhappy students randomly assigned to disabled students’ rooms. The university also argued that wheelchair users took up more than their allotted space in double rooms. Coleman complained to the Department of Education, and the university agreed to find Coleman a roommate. However, after a failed search for a voluntary roommate, the university refused to require another student to be randomly assigned as Coleman’s roommate. The university asserted that Coleman’s disability and need for attendant care excluded Coleman from participating in the assigned-roommate program. Coleman filed suit in federal district court, alleging violations of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Piester, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 810,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership